If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Nice straw man argument. Yout set it up and knocked it down with great flair. I'm not exactly certain whose argument you are attacking because it surely was not mine.

judging from this thread, it looks like a day to show how uninformed half the population is because of there rumor mill conservative media.

You keep ignoring this statement you made. Are you now going to try to craft an argument that this statement (the one you made) is not condescending? Or are you going to elect to attempt another red herring or straw man argument?

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. Its not" - Dr Suess

Nice straw man argument. Yout set it up and knocked it down with great flair. I'm not exactly certain whose argument you are attacking because it surely was not mine.

You keep ignoring this statement you made. Are you now going to try to craft an argument that this statement (the one you made) is not condescending? Or are you going to elect to attempt another red herring or straw man argument?

i already fully explain that quote. see post #34

Originally Posted by Ando

So all this diarrhea flowing out your mouth is what? A statement of how un-opinionated you are?

Really?!?!?!

So...the link you posted was what...A nonfactual opinion you support?

No sane person would do that.

you accused me that anyone who did not share my opinion was wrong. since i have not stated one, that doesn't make sense.

you said purely factual. no where did i claim everything in that link is purely factual.

Originally Posted by going_home

That was the point of my last post.
You destroyed nothing.
Your post was irrelevant.
And full of loose.
The program exists.

All you proved was you don't like the nickname the program has been christened.

Even the people that have the phones use that nickname.

Good luck on YouTube.

i never claimed a program didn't exist. it is however fundamentally different then the conservative media has reported it to be. i have no problem with the name, i even have probably used it more in this thread then anyone else. i have a problem with the notion that the program operates in any way similar to how the conservative rumor mill has reported it to work.

conservative rumor mill

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

i never claimed a program didn't exist. it is however fundamentally different then the conservative media has reported it to be. i have no problem with the name, i even have probably used it more in this thread then anyone else. i have a problem with the notion that the program operates in any way similar to how theconservative rumor mill has reported it to work.

Dude.

All I did was post a couple Youtubes and a link.

Where did Fox news come into play ?

I know in past posts of yours in here your thought pattern almost always revolves around
Fox news.

Its amazing how much hate Fox generates, topping the most watched list,
while their counterparts like CNN and MSNBC etc etc barely have any audience at all.

But that aside, again, I posted a couple Youtubes and a link.

You know Youtube, owned by Google, owned buy two of the most liberal billionaires on the planet ?

Your explanation was a conclusion with no supporting evidence. As your conclusion was that there was nothing insulting about calling half of the population uninformed I rejected it as lacking face validity. You still continue to insist that your statement was not insulting or for that matter condescending.

So no you did not fully explain how the quote was not insulting or condescending.

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

HARDY HAR HAR!

And we're just gonna put a happy little bush in the corner right there, and it'll be our little secret. AND IF YOU TELL ANYONE! THAT, THAT BUSH IS THERE! I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE! AND I WILL CUT YOU!

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

Without digging into which administration started it or the intimate details of the issue, the idea that government welfare has become so perverse that it is helping people buy a phone is pretty depressing.

The only welfare that government should be providing (in my humble, slightly libertarian opinion) is only the most basic of things in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and only for a limited amount of time. A phone does not come close to that threshold.

Totally agree with this. but I think that the idea of having a phone is more for emergency use in households that have kids. In todays world, I think most people would agree that a phone, much like food, running water, and electricity is a necessity. Its pretty difficult to get a job if you can't afford a phone to get callbacks from potential employers.

The problem is that the system was most likely created with these intentions in mind and has devolved into the inevitable abuse that is inherent when lazy people, bent on abusing the system to get what they feel society owes them when they in turn add no value to society other than being a leech. are given hand outs.

Totally agree with this. but I think that the idea of having a phone is more for emergency use in households that have kids. In todays world, I think most people would agree that a phone, much like food, running water, and electricity is a necessity. Its pretty difficult to get a job if you can't afford a phone to get callbacks from potential employers. The problem is that the system was most likely created with these intentions in mind and has devolved into the inevitable abuse that is inherent when lazy people, bent on abusing the system to get what they feel society owes them when they in turn add no value to society other than being a leech. are given hand outs.

Exactly. Any type of welfare program is always done with the best of intentions and like clockwork, they are always taken advantage of. When creating these programs, government NEVER takes human nature into account (or maybe they do and just prefer to advertise the "rosier" numbers for political expediency). This is why communism/socialism inevitably fails. They always assume that people are robots without dynamic behavior, emotions or thought-processes.

Exactly. Any type of welfare program is always done with the best of intentions and like clockwork, they are always taken advantage of. When creating these programs, government NEVER takes human nature into account (or maybe they do and just prefer to advertise the "rosier" numbers for political expediency). This is why communism/socialism inevitably fails. They always assume that people are robots without dynamic behavior, emotions or thought-processes.

Actually ever so techinically socialism, as defined by Marx does not. The theory behind socialism is, summed up easily, from each according to their abilities to each according to their DEEDs. It is communism that changes the face of it into from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. The problem is even Marx acknowledged that communism actually working would required a fundamental adjustment of human nature and theorized it could only be done over time. Socialism is simply an adjustment to the ownership of the means of production. It does not, at least in Marxist theory, allow for people to simply take from the system without putting in.

Actually ever so techinically socialism, as defined by Marx does not. The theory behind socialism is, summed up easily, from each according to their abilities to each according to their DEEDs. It is communism that changes the face of it into from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs. The problem is even Marx acknowledged that communism actually working would required a fundamental adjustment of human nature and theorized it could only be done over time. Socialism is simply an adjustment to the ownership of the means of production. It does not, at least in Marxist theory, allow for people to simply take from the system without putting in.

Well that's pretty interesting. I've never heard that distinction, I'm going to have to brush up on my Karl Marx readings (some day).

Well that's pretty interesting. I've never heard that distinction, I'm going to have to brush up on my Karl Marx readings (some day).

Look at what Stalin did in what he called communism (and Trostsky did not exactly have clean hands under Lenin either). Either you put into the collective effort or you were removed from the collective.

Referencing what is being done today as socialism gives socialism a bad name. The USSR might have been labeled communist but it was at most socialist in practice.

Look at what Stalin did in what he called communism (and Trostsky did not exactly have clean hands under Lenin either). Either you put into the collective effort or you were removed from the collective.

Referencing what is being done today as socialism gives socialism a bad name. The USSR might have been labeled communist but it was at most socialist in practice.

What is being done today by the welfare state is not socialism.

socialism , communism , marxism , I'm not really interested in living under any of them , I prefer LIBERTY & FREEDOM

I live in South Florida , I've talked to a few Cubans that lived under Castro , I haven't met any that want to go back

socialism , communism , marxism , I'm not really interested in living under any of them , I prefer LIBERTY & FREEDOM

Pretty much sums it up. Socialism-lite, socialism, totalitarianism, and communism are all the anti-thesis of what made the country great, and I want no part of any of them.

And to take it a step further (though many might disagree with this opinion), any society that takes from one class of people and redistributes to others ( the progressive income tax system), arbitrarily decides winners and losers in a "free market", (US Auto, Goldman Sachs, "green energy" etc) or instigates class warfare (the 99%, fat cats, Wall St. vs Main St., etc) is in the infant stage of something worse, whatever that might be. Hopefully more people see the light.

Pretty much sums it up. Socialism-lite, socialism, totalitarianism, and communism are all the anti-thesis of what made the country great, and I want no part of any of them.

And to take it a step further (though many might disagree with this opinion), any society that takes from one class of people and redistributes to others ( the progressive income tax system), arbitrarily decides winners and losers in a "free market", (US Auto, Goldman Sachs, "green energy" etc) or instigates class warfare (the 99%, fat cats, Wall St. vs Main St., etc) is in the infant stage of something worse, whatever that might be. Hopefully more people see the light.

That has been historically true for a very long time. The moment a society begins to feed on itself the social fabric will break down. The progressive tax system, TAKEN ALONE, is not a disastor. If it were used to finance a government within limits it would be defensible. However when it is used to finance individual lifestyles of choice it becomes a concern.

Lets take one of the basic functions of government: common defense. Pretend government did nothing else. Within these limited conditions a progressive income tax system is in fact defensible. Obviously a limited government has other valid roles as well - in this case one can still defend a progressive income tax system. It only becomes a problem when the government is operating outside of its boundaries.

That has been historically true for a very long time. The moment a society begins to feed on itself the social fabric will break down. The progressive tax system, TAKEN ALONE, is not a disastor. If it were used to finance a government within limits it would be defensible. However when it is used to finance individual lifestyles of choice it becomes a concern.

I want in on this

So, I was in a store that accepts EBT as payment. Guy walks in, looks like an oil tycoon, loads up a cart full of soda, chips, and candy. Of course he uses his government assistance card to pay... then loads up his "food" in his Escalade, and drives off. The cashier looks at me and says "Do you know who that guy is?"

Listen, I didn't know the guy, but i bet his boots alone cost more than the cashier makes in a month.

So, I was in a store that accepts EBT as payment. Guy walks in, looks like an oil tycoon, loads up a cart full of soda, chips, and candy. Of course he uses his government assistance card to pay... then loads up his "food" in his Escalade, and drives off. The cashier looks at me and says "Do you know who that guy is?"

Listen, I didn't know the guy, but i bet his boots alone cost more than the cashier makes in a month.

She said that's the biggest drug dealer in the city...

I'm tired of this BS socialism

I know this all too well. I too am from Tx. Lived down by the border around Brownsville area, biggest **** hole ever IMHO.

We call those guys 'Mafioso". What they do is buy peoples food stamps on a 4 to 1 trade (4 stamps / $1) and the people go buy drugs with the $$$ which I'm sure you know where that money is going right back too

So their families starve and the drug dealers get richer. Then Tx. went to this stupid card which just made it easier for the dealers. Now they send the strung out people with a grocery list to get their produce for them.

So, I was in a store that accepts EBT as payment. Guy walks in, looks like an oil tycoon, loads up a cart full of soda, chips, and candy. Of course he uses his government assistance card to pay... then loads up his "food" in his Escalade, and drives off. The cashier looks at me and says "Do you know who that guy is?"

Listen, I didn't know the guy, but i bet his boots alone cost more than the cashier makes in a month.

She said that's the biggest drug dealer in the city...

I'm tired of this BS socialism

Aside from participating in the social welfare system isn't a drug dealer really an example of capitalism?

I almost said pure capitalism but as Adam Smith defined capitalism the buyer and seller had to be free to enter and exit the market place and I am not sure that an addict qualifies.

I guess I have to ask AmyM, have you ever been to a Socialist country? How do you define Socialism? Additionally, if this article is correct I would say that a rate of fraud of 1% or less is something that I can live with if there are people out there that are getting help that actually need help.

I think very few people actually understand the Marxist concepts of socialism. They have simply become accustomed to the knee jerk "OMG thats socialist" reaction. Socialism and social welfare programs are not one in the same.

Please understand that my comments are not intended as defenses of socialism or communism. While I think they are neat ideas in theory they have been shown, repeatedly, to be utterly useless in practical application especially at a government level.

I think very few people actually understand the Marxist concepts of socialism. They have simply become accustomed to the knee jerk "OMG thats socialist" reaction. Socialism and social welfare programs are not one in the same.

Please understand that my comments are not intended as defenses of socialism or communism. While I think they are neat ideas in theory they have been shown, repeatedly, to be utterly useless in practical application especially at a government level.

Not a confrontational response but how would you define People's Republic of China?

Not a confrontational response but how would you define People's Republic of China?

As being odd. The People's Republic of China is socialist in nature in that the means of production or (generally) owned by the state. To me that is the important element of socialism that is missed in the "OMG its socialist" responses. Socialism, as considered by Marx and practiced by Stalin, did not accept when people simply did not put into the good of the system and expected to collect from it.

The oddity of China is that they practice capitalism on the world stage - that is to say the act as a capalistic entity when procurring and selling products. That being said I don't see any way a socialist state would avoid this.

However I also beleive that any state that has to stop the free flow of information or make emmigration of its best and brightest illegal or unduly complicated has ultimately failed to allow individuals the rights of autonomy that are due each person.

Perhaps utterly impractical at a government level was an overreach. However I beleive it has required utilitarian practices that violate personal autonomy and are ultimately immoral. I beleive any system requiring such an immoral action cannot lest indefinetly.

I think the reason most people simply refer to the redistribution of wealth or any other "nanny state welfare program (ex. universal healthcare) as "socialist" is simply because they (and I, for that matter) lack a more easy way to describe what that type of system is without writing a Master's Thesis on political science.

Even when one asks Google, "What is socialism?" it will tell you, "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole". It may not be precise to what our good friend Marx advocated or it might be missing the key detail you describe ("you must put into the system to take out") but I think the meaning and definition has simply been morphed by society or evolved to suit the times.